Capable yet Parsimonious: Extracting and Characterizing Hidden Chain-of-Thought in Frontier Models
Abstract
The rapid capability gains of frontier language models are widely attributed to improved reasoning abilities, yet this cannot be verified as raw CoT traces in closed-source systems are hidden. By registering a simple custom tool through a standard API feature, we induce frontier models to externalize intermediate reasoning. Because these traces may reflect post-hoc rationalization rather than genuine reasoning, we first evaluate against native CoT on open-source models and extend to closed-source frontier models including GPT-6 Astra. We find that the extracted reasoning matches native reasoning performance and substantially outperforms no-reasoning baselines, across competition mathematics, science, and code generation. We then characterize how frontier models structure their intermediate reasoning. Across token efficiency, reasoning-step types, and induced reasoning trees, we identify systematic differences in how models externalize, compress, and organize reasoning. We find that Astra exhibits token-efficient directed reasoning, selecting a correct trajectory earlier, while resolving elementary steps internally and externalizing only crucial reasoning. These findings provide a behavioral lens on frontier-model reasoning beyond benchmark scores.
Community
We extracted hidden chain-of-thought from GPT-6 Astra. Here's what surprised us.
In our new preprint, we show that a simple tool-calling setup can give us access to hidden CoT from frontier models, including GPT-6 Astra, GPT-5.6 Sol, Claude Opus 4.8, and Claude Sonnet 5.
What surprised us most was Astra's reasoning trace. Locally, it resembles mental arithmetic, with routine calculations left implicit. Globally, it's highly direct, backtracks less, and reaches solutions with little visible trial-and-error. This efficiency is impressive, but it also cuts both ways: a very short path to a correct answer is exactly what genuine skill and memorised test data both look like from the outside.
This is why being able to see the reasoning matters. A right answer can hide wrong reasoning, or no reasoning at all. As frontier models get more capable, they are also getting harder to read, and verifying what they actually do will take methods like this, not just better benchmarks.
Grateful to my co-authors Tao Ren, Wenrui Yu, Xiao Li, Qiongxiu Li, and Johannes Bjerva for making this work possible. This work is a collaboration across AAU-NLP, AI:SECURITY Lab, and the Seafill Open Source Community. Our method has been disclosed to OpenAI and Anthropic.
This is an automated message from the Librarian Bot. I found the following papers similar to this paper.
The following papers were recommended by the Semantic Scholar API
- EchoCoT: Extracting Hidden Chain-of-Thought from Large Reasoning Models (2026)
- Revisiting Complete Reasoning Traces for Post-Training (2026)
- The Tell-Tale Trace: Detecting Reasoning Failures in LLMs Using Chain-of-Thought Dynamics (2026)
- Reason Wide, Not Deep: Amortizing the Reasoning Premium into Distilled Skills (2026)
- How Hard Does It Think? Analyzing Step-Aware Reasoning Energy in LLM Chain-of-Thought Trajectories (2026)
- ChainPrune: Evaluating and Reducing Redundancy in Long Chain-of-Thought Reasoning (2026)
- HSRM: Hidden-State Reward Models for Test-Time Verification (2026)
Please give a thumbs up to this comment if you found it helpful!
If you want recommendations for any Paper on Hugging Face checkout this Space
You can directly ask Librarian Bot for paper recommendations by tagging it in a comment: @librarian-bot recommend
Get this paper in your agent:
hf papers read 2609.26637 Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash Models citing this paper 0
No model linking this paper
Datasets citing this paper 0
No dataset linking this paper
Spaces citing this paper 0
No Space linking this paper